The new concussion rule in Test cricket comes into force as of the first Ashes Test this week.
Its application may well prove to be a headache for match referees, as they will be the sole arbiter as to who is allowed to replace a concussed player.
The new ICC regulation states that the replacement has to be “like for like”, meaning the match referee has to decide what “like for like” is.
Let’s use a hypothetical. If Nathan Lyon is concussed while batting on Day 1, could he be replaced? If Marnus Labuschagne was not in the playing XI, would he be granted permission to take his place?
Labuschagne has played five Tests, in which his leg-spin has claimed nine wickets at 27.1 – handy figures – while Lyon captured 12 wickets at 34.6 in his first five Tests.
But are Labuschagne’s figures enough to sway Ranjan Madugalle, the match referee for the upcoming series, to allow him to slot in for Lyon, who is seen as a specialist spinner?
(Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
Does Labuschagne come in or does Australia play one short for the remainder of the match because there is no obviously similar replacement?
It would be a tricky question for Madugalle, even more so if it happens to occur during the final Test, with the scoreline locked at 2-2.
If he were to give Labuschagne the nod, he would no doubt have to bat in Lyon’s regular position, which would likely be No.11.
And then what happens if, when the ninth wicket falls, he joins Steve Smith at the crease with just another 30 runs remaining to win the series? For a man who would normally bat in the top six and with a first-class average of 37.4 and nine centuries, it would be a handy bonus.
Again, it all comes down to the match referee’s decision as to whether Labuschagne actually checks into the game in the first place.
(AAP Image/Richard Wainwright)
Another example, let’s say given the fact he has played no red-ball cricket on the tour so far, Usman Khawaja is omitted from the opening Test and opener Cameron Bancroft gets concussed. Is Khawaja seen as the logical replacement?
Both are specialist batsmen, but would Khawaja be assessed as being too experienced? What process does the match referee go through?
It will be Bancroft’s ninth Test if he plays on Thursday. He averages 30.9 and is yet to make a century. Khawaja has played 41 Tests, averages 42.5 and has scored eight centuries.
Does that mean the replacement has to be Marcus Harris because he has played only six Tests, is yet to score a century and averages 32.7? Yet Khawaja and Harris were both deemed as unsuitable by the selectors prior to the match.
If Peter Siddle were concussed, could you replace a 130 kilometre per hour right-armer with the 150 kilometre per hour left-arm Mitchell Starc?
Just what is “like for like” and how broad is the interpretation? All sport is ideally as fair and equitable as it can be. The new concussion rule, however, could favour touring sides.
Traditionally during matches in Australia, the selectors name a No.12 with one player missing out. More often than not, he is a bowler. Let’s say the Test is being played in Perth and a batsman gets concussed. If the Western Australia Shield team is playing an away game that week, where do they source a replacement player from?
If the WA team is not playing that week, does Justin Langer need to ring someone on a golf course and ask if he could head home and get his creams and kit, and hightail it to Optus Stadium?
Yet a 17-man England tour party would have a batsman at the ground ready to check into the game immediately.
When playing in Perth, will Australia need to have a squad of similar size with a reserve spinner, fast bowler and a top and middle-order batsman, thus potentially denying those players match practice if their respective states are in action concurrently in the Shield competition?
ICC operations manager Geoff Allardice has stated, “There will be a period where we’re going to find out if there are any loopholes with the rules.”
That is bound to be the case.
Surely the simplest thing would have been to allow the 12th man to slot straight into the game when a player is ruled out through concussion and to allow him to fulfil any role in the game he is equipped to do.
That way there is no judgement call to be made by the match referee and both teams know they have one specific player in reserve.
Yes, it may mean a bowler replacing a batsman or vice versa, but you name a 12 at the toss and you are stuck with that as a consequence.
That way, a team is at least guaranteed an active substitute, whereas the way the concussion rule is written nowadays the match referee will decide whether you continue on with either ten or 11 players.
Either that or you simply continue to treat concussion as you do any other injury incurred during a match.
Lord invictus
Guest
God bless
Phil
Guest
Simple solution. Once a qualified and independent medical official submits to the Match Referee that a player is suffering an injury not allowing him to continue (including concussion), he is replaced for the remainder of the game by the selected 12th man. Hence a 12th man should normally be an all rounder.
James
Roar Rookie
Completely agree. The like for like rule is a can of worms. If a concussed player needs replacing (I don't believe they should) let it be the 12th man. It is just one of three ridiculous recent decisions by the ICC. The test championship is unfair. NZ don't play England or South Africa whilst Australia don't play WI or SL. Advantage NZ. Then the final is played at Lords! The other idea which I am disappointed with is the wearing of random numbers on the back of shirts. What are these numbers for? Easy identification? Merchandising? Give me a break. Three better rule changes. 1. Get rid of neutral umpires. Select the best umpires available regardless of their country of origin. 2. Get rid go leg byes. Why reward a team for missing the ball? 3. Deflections off bats or bodies during runout attempts should be dead balls.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Sure. I'm more favourable towards a blanket policy regarding substituting players irrespective of injury.
HR
Roar Rookie
But the problem is that for 140 years that poor bloke hasn't been out of the game - often he's come back on to the field to play when he shouldn't have done so. Head injuries are a bit different to other injuries in my opinion, because they affect judgement and perception, rather than just causing pain and limiting physical performance.
HR
Roar Rookie
I think that the 12th should be the sub, but any potentially life-threatening injury seems like an appropriate situation for the use of a full substitute. Having the capacity to withdraw a player who has suffered an injury of this kind from the game makes it easier for the team to fulfill their duty of care, and means that freak injuries result in less of an imbalance between the two sides playing.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
I understand where you're coming from, it is the most likely, but I guess when everyone has to bat, the rules need to cover that.
Sir Francis
Roar Rookie
I know this isn't the point of the discussion but why Labuschagne? He's as much a leg spinner as Steve Smith or as Marsh is an allrounder. Marsh could never be used in a like for like situation as no one is at his level or below. As for replacing Lyon. Maybe they should have selected a second spinner. As for "Like for Like" you'd need at least one extra opener. 2 if there are a left & right handed batsmen. Same for the middle order. A second WK (who bats the same hand as the incumbent). For every spinner & quick bowled there equivalent. At least we won't have to worry about Allrounders as we have none (Allrounder definition: A person who can bat in the top 6 AND be one of the first 4 bowlers eg: Ian Botham, Keith Miller, Flintoff and not someone who averages below 40 in Shield cricket and is a glorified net bowler. Someone like Watson who averaged 30 with the bat in his last 5 seasons and took 1 wicket per Test is not an allrounder. And wouldn't Marsh love stats like that! OK, off the soap box (it's made of cardboard and I make Boonie look svelte. Less than 26 hours to go. (I haven't seen meaningful cricket since January. Aversion therapy doesn't work) Sorry for the diatribe & invective but I just hate seeing guys given Green Baggy caps who shouldn't be getting them. It certainly didn't happen in my day (yeah, ok, it most definitely happened in my day. No, I just looked. Most people picked since I've been watching I have no problem with. I think it started with the selection of Doherty, followed by Beer (you know what I mean!), M. Marsh & H. Cartwright. Not as bad as I thought. maybe it was before my time? I'm too old to look back. Have I killed enough time? No, still over 25 hours to go. The interminable wait! Will it never end! Its like waiting for Godot! Anyway, in the words of former Sri Lankan batsman Duleep Mendis, who said after being hit on the head by a rearing delivery from Thommo in the 1975 World Cup. "I go now." P.S. It's Thommo's birthday in 2 weeks. Don't forget. For awhile he was the quickest. And the scariest.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
No dispute concussion is dangerous. Poor bloke is just out of the game. Same as it's been for a 140 years and as probably before. No sub required.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Getting hit on the heart causing dysrhythmia? I'm not disputing the seriousness of concussion. It's whether a player gets injured and should be replaced by a sub who can perform a specialist role (bat, bowl, keep). It's the duty of care of the team to ensure a player isn't exposed to further and potentially permanent injury, head or or physical. What about a player with a broken finger or hand? Is that player not then more susceptible to coming out and getting hit in the head if they can't get their bat up to play a hook shot in front of the eyes? Shouldn't they be barred from batting again if they're facing 140kmh+?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Yes it is. Hence why the rule is unworkable of itself. And unnecessary in the first place.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I don't disagree at all. But if he's injured he's injured and the team loses a player, either temporarily or permanently. Same as with all injuries. If passed fit, a batsman can come back in down the order or in the next innings. In the meantime if he's still off the field when his team is now bowling, the 12th man can take the field. If the injured player can't bat again, then the team is without a batsman.
HR
Roar Rookie
Because a concussion may be genuinely dangerous, particularly if a player continues to play while concussed. His reactions and judgement will already be impaired, and a second concussion in short succession can do serious damage. Even continuing to play rather than being monitored for concussion-related damage is a risky approach, because symptoms can surface some time after the impact. If you tear a hamstring, you might damage it further by keeping on playing, but your body will self-limit what you can do (the pain of doing more damage will stop you, unlike with a concussion), and any additional damage is not going to be life-threatening.
Flexis
Roar Rookie
You can’t add timing of the match as a variable. Absolutely impossible to adjudicate.
Paul
Roar Guru
Much of it is a reaction to the fate of Phillip Hughes I'm sure, but there is a growing concern about liability for head injuries that have previously been ignored, in a range of sports, eg baseball and I'm guessing the ICC has picked up on this trend and is trying to do something about it. I suspect in future, when a guy's suffers a head injury in a game, they'll have to pass a concussion test, similar to what happens in AFL & NRL now. That takes more than a few minutes so the player will not be allowed to remain on the field and can only return if passed fit, again the same as what happens in the footy codes
HR
Roar Rookie
Mitch has had a lot of practice as a specialist 12th man - I can see this working well.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
But not if you selected a pace bowler and they had to be replaced with a spinner on the evening of day four, when you are bowling on day 5. But does Glenn Maxwell get ruled out of ever being allowed as a sub if it's like-for-like style of bowler? Or do the umpires have to step in and say no, you can only play if you only bowl medium pacers, not offies, Glenn? What if the replacement batsmen has a career strike rate far higher than the batsman being replaced? Do the umpires step in and instruct that batsman to bat more slowly, in keeping with the batsman he replaced? Too many what ifs and a rule being introduced for a situation that arises so rarely where a player is ruled out of a game due to a hit on the head.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I don't think it's so much pre-meditating a hit to the head, but once it happens it's still open for abuse. How many batsmen do we see being hit in the head and of those, how many actually have to leave the field of play? There are plenty of other genuine injuries that occur in a game, I don't see why concussion needs/deserves to be treated preferentially in the rules.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Exactly. So many what if scenarios. Injuries happen in all sports. It's bad fortune when it happens, but that's just the way it is. The duty of care first and foremost sits with the player's team to ensure he/she isn't further exposed to aggravating any injury sustained during play. If that means they don't play again, then that's the end of it and a team goes on without a player.
Paul
Roar Guru
totally agree, but I remember this sort of thing being discussed in the '80's when the West Indies had at least 5 or 6 seriously good fast bowlers and the concern was a fast bowler getting replaced who had a "bad back" with another guy who was just as lethal. Imagine going into a Test where Malcolm Marshall is 12th man and just before the second innings starts, Courtney Walsh claims he has a sore toe and needs to be replaced? With a bloke who is nice and fresh, not having bowled at all in the first innings. The idea was kyboshed pretty quickly because it's simply too hard to police, whereas if you want to rort a concussion rule, you're probably going to have to ask someone to do something incredibly stupid, like standing in front of a bouncer or diving head first into a fence!!